Plans for new North Yorkshire Police HQ scrapped

MULTI-million pound plans for new police headquarters in North Yorkshire have been dropped by the county's police and crime commissioner, amid plans to merge some functions with neighbouring Cleveland Police.

Police and crime commissioner Julia Mulligan has today announced a scheme to build a state of the art new HQ and northern base at South Kilvington has been abandoned in favour of a cheaper deal with Cleveland Police.

Instead of the plan, which attracted opposition from people in the village near Thirsk, the force will merge some operations with Cleveland and use its planned Community Safety Hub at Hemlington in Middlesbrough, around 23 miles north of the South Kilvington site.

Mrs Mulligan said she no longer believed the new build HQ offered value for money.

She added: “Closing the Northern Base project was a tough decision to make, because a lot of effort has gone into the preparatory work, but it is the right thing to do. The new information we have about custody demand, and the possibilities offered through a partnership with Cleveland, give us scope to explore different accommodation solutions. And if that can save us around up to £10m, and cushion North Yorkshire Police from some of the tough economic challenges ahead, then we must take that opportunity."

The new HQ would also have housed a custody suite to serve the north of the county, but those plans have too been halted in favour of saving Northallerton police station from closure and bringing its existing custody cells up to scratch.

In December, the North Yorkshire force announced it had put down a deposit on land for its new HQ, but today's announcement said no planning permission had been applied for and no land purchased, meaning the decision to abandon the scheme could save as much as £10 million.

With new plans at a very early stage, a spokesman for the commissioner said he could not confirm what services would be combined with Cleveland at the Hemlington base.

Mrs Mulligan said working with Cleveland Police would also help tackle cross-border crime and North Yorkshire's Chief Constable Dave Jones has leant his support. He said:

“This is a difficult time financially for all public services, so if there is an opportunity for us to secure the right facilities - at a lower price tag - by doing things differently, then we must grasp it with both hands.

But, the future of the Force's current home in the Grade II* listed Newby Wiske Hall remains under threat as the Commissioner still plans to sell-off the building. Some police jobs will have to move to new locations, but the commissioner's spokesman said they did not yet know whether these would be to existing police stations or new offices.

Jack Ham wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.

Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?

[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.[/p][/quote]Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?bolero

Jack Ham wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.

Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?

If you read the article properly, the existing building is being sold off and is not 'suitable for requirements' as you put it.
It's a good idea to share a building with a neighbouring force.

[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.[/p][/quote]Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?[/p][/quote]If you read the article properly, the existing building is being sold off and is not 'suitable for requirements' as you put it.
It's a good idea to share a building with a neighbouring force.old_selebian

Wonder what the small number of folk who actually voted for these 'local sheriffs' are thinking now?

So what if it's a "u turn" if the information has changed and the right decision is being made in the end?

Too often politicians are unwilling to change their minds and act upon changed circumstances, because they're terrified of opportunistic opponents and armchair commentators accusing them of doing a "u turn" and therefore being "weak".

Although I'm not a fan of the idea of police & crime commissioners in principle, on this occasion I think Ms Mulligan has made the strong decision, not a "weak" one.

[quote][p][bold]Haywire[/bold] wrote:
Wonder what the next U turn will be?
Wonder what the small number of folk who actually voted for these 'local sheriffs' are thinking now?[/p][/quote]So what if it's a "u turn" if the information has changed and the right decision is being made in the end?
Too often politicians are unwilling to change their minds and act upon changed circumstances, because they're terrified of opportunistic opponents and armchair commentators accusing them of doing a "u turn" and therefore being "weak".
Although I'm not a fan of the idea of police & crime commissioners in principle, on this occasion I think Ms Mulligan has made the strong decision, not a "weak" one.SteveSCA

Jack Ham wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.

Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?

Looks from the article like a new opportunity came with Cleveland that gave her a chance to do something different.

Doing something different, based on new facts and opportunities isn't a u-turn, it's good common sense.

Others closer to home could learn from this.

[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.[/p][/quote]Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?[/p][/quote]Looks from the article like a new opportunity came with Cleveland that gave her a chance to do something different.
Doing something different, based on new facts and opportunities isn't a u-turn, it's good common sense.
Others closer to home could learn from this.Jack Ham

Jack Ham wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.

Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?

If you read the article properly, the existing building is being sold off and is not 'suitable for requirements' as you put it.
It's a good idea to share a building with a neighbouring force.

There is no indication that the existing building IS being sold off. If you read the article properly "there are plans to sell off the building". Just as there were plans to build a new HQ. What happened there? The last sentence says it all; they just don't know where they are going or what is required.

[quote][p][bold]old_selebian[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.[/p][/quote]Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?[/p][/quote]If you read the article properly, the existing building is being sold off and is not 'suitable for requirements' as you put it.
It's a good idea to share a building with a neighbouring force.[/p][/quote]There is no indication that the existing building IS being sold off. If you read the article properly "there are plans to sell off the building". Just as there were plans to build a new HQ. What happened there? The last sentence says it all; they just don't know where they are going or what is required.bolero

It's almost like Julia took up a position at the head of an organisation with no previous experience of managing a public body like the police.
Talk about the tail wagging the dog.
What have YOU actually done since taking the job?
Photo opportunities, good will statements and underlining existing policies don't count.
A.Malpha.male

well they/she has said share the building but independent forces, erm for how long. As far as i was aware Newby Wiske recently had some kind of upgrade and the new location is another Ex Stately Home.
build it on an existing Police station HE in Central North Yorkshire, remembering that staff to man these HQs need to get to where ever.
and the Press , are we in York really interested .

well they/she has said share the building but independent forces, erm for how long. As far as i was aware Newby Wiske recently had some kind of upgrade and the new location is another Ex Stately Home.
build it on an existing Police station HE in Central North Yorkshire, remembering that staff to man these HQs need to get to where ever.
and the Press , are we in York really interested .Dave Ruddock

U turn it might be, but we are still £650K out of pocket in the monies spent already.
You can't help but think dialogue with other forces or for that matter local authorities might be useful, before you ask consultants to act on your behalf. Not too many private businesses could withstand dropping this sort of figure and then start again. Hopefully it can now be replaced by the speed camera, soryy safety van budget.

U turn it might be, but we are still £650K out of pocket in the monies spent already.
You can't help but think dialogue with other forces or for that matter local authorities might be useful, before you ask consultants to act on your behalf. Not too many private businesses could withstand dropping this sort of figure and then start again. Hopefully it can now be replaced by the speed camera, soryy safety van budget.nottoooldtocare

Jack Ham wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.

Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?

Spot on. After all the huffing and puffing of this key election pledge, one of the largest geographical Police forces cannot have its own dedicated HQ. There should be an inquiry about this fiasco, why the idea fell to pieces? How much public money was spent on the project? Is the PCC fit for purpose? etc. etc.

[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.[/p][/quote]Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?[/p][/quote]Spot on. After all the huffing and puffing of this key election pledge, one of the largest geographical Police forces cannot have its own dedicated HQ. There should be an inquiry about this fiasco, why the idea fell to pieces? How much public money was spent on the project? Is the PCC fit for purpose? etc. etc.Guthred

Jack Ham wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.

Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?

Looks from the article like a new opportunity came with Cleveland that gave her a chance to do something different.

Doing something different, based on new facts and opportunities isn't a u-turn, it's good common sense.

Others closer to home could learn from this.

No doubt - that'll be right.

[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]bolero[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Jack Ham[/bold] wrote:
A public body decides not to spend money and make do with what it has. Refreshing.[/p][/quote]Except that we were told that the existing building was no longer fit for purpose. So how has it suddenly become suitable for requirements. A deposit was put down on land required for the new build. How much? and what happens to that now? This lady obviously is for turning and is unable to make proper assessments before committing to new schemes. Is he now proving her own worthlessness?[/p][/quote]Looks from the article like a new opportunity came with Cleveland that gave her a chance to do something different.
Doing something different, based on new facts and opportunities isn't a u-turn, it's good common sense.
Others closer to home could learn from this.[/p][/quote]No doubt - that'll be right.Haywire

nottoooldtocare wrote:
U turn it might be, but we are still £650K out of pocket in the monies spent already.
You can't help but think dialogue with other forces or for that matter local authorities might be useful, before you ask consultants to act on your behalf. Not too many private businesses could withstand dropping this sort of figure and then start again. Hopefully it can now be replaced by the speed camera, soryy safety van budget.

[quote][p][bold]nottoooldtocare[/bold] wrote:
U turn it might be, but we are still £650K out of pocket in the monies spent already.
You can't help but think dialogue with other forces or for that matter local authorities might be useful, before you ask consultants to act on your behalf. Not too many private businesses could withstand dropping this sort of figure and then start again. Hopefully it can now be replaced by the speed camera, soryy safety van budget.[/p][/quote]Spot on!! Couldn't have put it better myself. Jack H, etc., please note.Haywire

piaggio1 wrote:
Not fit for purpose..and how the hell did that woman get that job????
Never mind love...YCC position for you...

"We" voted her in. Please keep up at the back!

[quote][p][bold]piaggio1[/bold] wrote:
Not fit for purpose..and how the hell did that woman get that job????
Never mind love...YCC position for you...[/p][/quote]"We" voted her in. Please keep up at the back!Haywire

I wrote to both the PCC candidates before the election asking about their plans for a new HQ and the future of Newby Wiske; I then voted based on the responses. I voted for Ruth Potter as I thought Julia Mulligan was naive on this issue. I made the right choice.

I wrote to both the PCC candidates before the election asking about their plans for a new HQ and the future of Newby Wiske; I then voted based on the responses. I voted for Ruth Potter as I thought Julia Mulligan was naive on this issue. I made the right choice.gjh

gjh wrote:
I wrote to both the PCC candidates before the election asking about their plans for a new HQ and the future of Newby Wiske; I then voted based on the responses. I voted for Ruth Potter as I thought Julia Mulligan was naive on this issue. I made the right choice.

I think that naivety started at home if you actually engaged with this ridiculous political circus.

[quote][p][bold]gjh[/bold] wrote:
I wrote to both the PCC candidates before the election asking about their plans for a new HQ and the future of Newby Wiske; I then voted based on the responses. I voted for Ruth Potter as I thought Julia Mulligan was naive on this issue. I made the right choice.[/p][/quote]I think that naivety started at home if you actually engaged with this ridiculous political circus.Haywire

It will be interesting to see the financial disclosures, either provided voluntarily or through FOIA, so as to examine the total costs of this ill thought through proposal. As the P&CC offices are set-up as a separate organisation and budget holder from the main NYP budget, then, these costs should be entirely claimed and offset against Mrs. Mulligan's P&CC budget and not in any way impact on mainstream police resources. The paying public should not be penalised any further. Pleased for the villagers of South Kilvington (who would surely have been successful in any potential, future litigation challenging this massive development), as they rightly highlighted the impracticalities for operational policing and the highly negative impact on their peaceful village where aside from many other problematical features, they would have had to deal with the continual impact of a high volume custody centre, with detainees and others associated with them, potentially wandering around a small country village - day and night - with very few transport facilities and looking to get back to wherever they came from! It was a non-starter and Mrs. Mulligan, as an amateur police person/professional politician, should have received and acted upon far better counselling that she appears to have done and duly deserves to have had her" fingers burned"!! As a footnote. The part of Cleveland where it is now proposed to move NYP, was a part of the old North Riding of Yorkshire until the onset of the LGA of 1972, so very much turning the clock back here!! Maybe, Harrogate, Skipton and Craven will also move their resources to North Leeds/Bradford/North Lancashire?!!

It will be interesting to see the financial disclosures, either provided voluntarily or through FOIA, so as to examine the total costs of this ill thought through proposal. As the P&CC offices are set-up as a separate organisation and budget holder from the main NYP budget, then, these costs should be entirely claimed and offset against Mrs. Mulligan's P&CC budget and not in any way impact on mainstream police resources. The paying public should not be penalised any further. Pleased for the villagers of South Kilvington (who would surely have been successful in any potential, future litigation challenging this massive development), as they rightly highlighted the impracticalities for operational policing and the highly negative impact on their peaceful village where aside from many other problematical features, they would have had to deal with the continual impact of a high volume custody centre, with detainees and others associated with them, potentially wandering around a small country village - day and night - with very few transport facilities and looking to get back to wherever they came from! It was a non-starter and Mrs. Mulligan, as an amateur police person/professional politician, should have received and acted upon far better counselling that she appears to have done and duly deserves to have had her" fingers burned"!! As a footnote. The part of Cleveland where it is now proposed to move NYP, was a part of the old North Riding of Yorkshire until the onset of the LGA of 1972, so very much turning the clock back here!! Maybe, Harrogate, Skipton and Craven will also move their resources to North Leeds/Bradford/North Lancashire?!!RooBeck